Allahabad Court July 1917 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Buddhu Misir and ors. Vs. Musammat Bhagirathi Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.936
1. The facts out of which this application for revision arises are these. In execution of a decree held by Buddhu Misir and others, the present applicants, the property of the judgment-debtor was sold by auction and was purchased by one Sukh Narain. The auction-purchaser sold the property purchased by him to the decree-holders. The decree-holders purchasers applied for delivery of possession under Order XXI, rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court of first instance granted their application. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge and he held that the applicants for possession, who were purchasers from the auction-purchasers, were not entitled to make an application under Order XXI, rule 95, and accordingly set aside the order of the Court of first instance. From this order of the karned District Judge the present application for revision has been preferred and it is contended that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the order of the Court ...
Emperor Vs. Ghasi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All722
Ryves, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Moradabad recommending that the conviction of one Ghasi under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Cole and the sentence of a fine imposed thereunder should be set aside. Ghasi was tried by a Bench of Honorary Magistrates and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. He appealed to the District Magistrate, who dismissed the appeal. The matter was then taken in revision before the learned Sessions Judge who has seat up the record with a recommendation for setting aside the conviction and sentence passed on Ghasi. In my opinion the facts as found by the learned District Magistrate in his judgement in appeal show that Ghasi was guilty of criminal trespass. The learned Sessions Judge says: 'In this case there is no evidence to show that the applicant Ghasi had entered upon the complainant's laud with criminal intent or that he had entered at all. Mere building of houses on another person's land, in my opinion, does not amo...
Muhammad Isa Khan Vs. Muhammad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All410; (1915)ILR40All60
Piggott, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for resumption brought under the provisions of chapter X of the Tenancy Act, (Local Act No. II of 1901). The court of first instance found that the whole of the area specified at the foot of the plaint had been held rent-free by the defendant for 50 years, and by two successors to the original grantee. It also found that the land was not liable to resumption at the pleasure of the grantor, or under any of the other conditions laid down by Section 154 of the same Act. The learned Assistant Collector, however, felt himself compelled to draw a distinction between two portions of the area in suit. With regard to plots of land making up a total area of seven bighas, which had never been anything but cultivated or culturable land, the finding was that the provisions of Section 158 of the Tenancy Act clearly applied and that the defendant must be deemed to hold the same in proprietary right. With regard to the remaining 9 bighas...
Haji Muhammad Isa Khan Vs. Muhammad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.956
Piggott, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for resumption brought under the provisions of Chapter X of the Tenancy Act (Local Act No. II of 1901). The Court of first instance found that the whole of the area specified at the foot of the plaint had been held rent free by the defendant for fifty years, and by two successors to the original grantee. It also found that the land was not liable to resumption at the pleasure of the grantor, or under any of the other conditions laid down by Section 154 of the same Act. The learned Assistant Collector, however, felt himself compelled to draw a distinction between two portions of the area in suit. With regard to plots of land making up a total area of 7 bighas, which had never been anything but cultivated or culturable land, the finding was that the provisions of Section 158 of the Tenancy Act clearly applied and that the defendant must be deemed to hold the same in proprietary right. With regard to the remaining 9 bighas 1...
Chiranji Lal and ors. Vs. Ganga Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All187(2); 42Ind.Cas.670
1. Gulzari Lal,the father of the plaintiffs-respondents, having executed a sale-deed in favour of Chiranji Lal, Gopal Das, Sheo Charan Lal and Mohan Lal, appellants, the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the property comprised in the sale, on the ground that the property was joint family property and that there was no family necessity for selling it. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim. The lower Appellate Court reversed the decree of that Court and made a decree in the plaintiffs' favour but provided in the decree that any improvements and additional constructions which the defendants purchasers may have made in respect of the property sold, may be removed by them within a time fixed, provided that the house was left in the same condition in which it was before the improvements were made. Upon appeal to this Court, the decree of the Court below was maintained by a learned Judge. Hence this appeal under the ...
Tapsi Singh and ors. Vs. Hardeo Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All210(2); (1917)ILR39All711; 42Ind.Cas.681
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is a suit between rival claimants to the possession of two parcels of land as tenants. It has come into court under somewhat peculiar circumstances. According to the plaintiffs the plots of land now in suit were recorded in the village papers as forming part of a holding of which the plaintiffs were tenants. It would seem, however, although the plaintiffs do not admit this fact in so many words, that the patwari must have found the defendants in actual cultivating possession of these particular plots of land. He solved the difficulty by recording the defendants in the village papers as sub-tenants of the plaintiffs. As a result two proceedings were taken before the Revenue Court, and seem to have been carried on more or less simultaneously. One was an application by the present plaintiffs asking the court to correct the entries made by the patwari in the village jamahandi and cognate papers, showing the defendants as sub-tenants of the plaintiffs. The appl...
Lala and ors. Vs. Sarup Lal and Piari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All707
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for possession of a house. The house stood on a plot of land which, under a partition which took place between the defendants and the predecessors in title of the plaintiffs, was allotted to the share of the former. The defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs from the house and thereupon the present suit was brought for recovery of possession of the house. The court of first instance decreed the claim and that decree was affirmed by the lower appellate court. The defendants have preferred this appeal, and their contention is that under Section 118 of the Land Revenue Act, the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover possession, inasmuch as they did not get rent assessed on the site at the time of the partition. In my judgement the provisions of Section 118, so far from supporting the contention of the defendants appellants, are against them. That section provides that, 'if in making a partition, it is ...
Muhammad Faiyaz Ali Khan Vs. Bihari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All128; (1918)ILR40All56
Knox, A. C. J., and Todball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Nawab Mumtaz-uddaula Faiyaz Ali Khan, who in his plaint sets himself out as, and who is further admitted to be, the sole zamindar of the village to which this appeal relates. The respondents are in the plaint described as the village banias and as being shop-keepers in the said village. The plaintiff is claiming 12 maunds of cotton seeds or the value thereof. It is true that in the plaint the plaintiff set out that there was a custom of such payment in the village. This amount of seed is payable for each shop occupied by the banias in the bazar. But in the written statement, which was filed, we note that the respondents themselves alleged that at the most the entry in the wajib-ul-arz amounts to an agreement between themselves and the plaintiff, the terms of which expired at the end of the former settlement of 1866. As the case went on it was evident that the courts below tried the questio...
Muhammad Faiyaz Ali Khan Vs. Behari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.329
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Nawab Mumtaz-ud-daula Faiyaz Ali Khan, who in his plaint sets himself out as, and who is further admitted to be, the sole Zemindar of the village to which this appeal relates. The respondents are in the plaint described as the village Banias and his being shopkeepers in the said village. The plaintiff is claiming 12 maunds of cotton seeds or the value thereof. It is true that in the plaint the plaintiff set out that there was a custom of such payment in the village. This amount of the seeds is payable for each shop occupied by the Banins in the Bazar. But in the written statement, which was filed, we note that the respondents themselves alleged that at the most the entry in the wajib-ul-arz amounts to an agreement between themselves and the plaintiff, the terms of which expired at the end of the former Settlement of 1866. As the case went on, it is evident that the Courts below tried the question between the plaintiff and the defendants as...
Fakir Chand Vs. Babu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All401; (1917)ILR39All719; 42Ind.Cas.879
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The main point for determination in this second appeal is a simple question of law. There was a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff appellant of a certain house, by two joint owners of the same, the aforesaid owners being, according to the recital in the mortgage deed, owners of equal shares and each of them in possession of his own share. One of these mortgagors subsequently sold his one-half share to the present respondent, Musammat Lachmi Kunwar. The latter thereupon deposited in court, for payment to the mortgages,, under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act (No. IV of 1882), what has been found to have been the full amount due on the mortgage, both principal and interest. The mortgagee refused to accept this deposit, although he suggested that he would have no objection to allowing Musammat Lachmi Kunwar to redeem one-half of the house upon payment of one-half of the mortgage debt.2. The deposit having been refused by the mortgagee, the court could t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »